as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christ's Body I Answer by denying that to be the true and adequate Reason for the true Reason is because in the Case supposed of two Churches independent one on the other and not subject to any Common Governour the one Church has no Power to impose Rites and Ceremonies on the other and consequently no sufficient ground to quarrel with it meerly for disagreeing from it in matter of Ceremony but if any of the members of one of the Churches refuse to submit to the Rites appointed by their own proper Governours their Agreement in Fundamentals is no sufficient ground why either their own or the other Church should receive them to Sacramental Communion He says indeed that those Differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body But 1. does he hold that every one who is really a member of Christs Body ought eo nomine to be admitted to all the Privileges of Christian Communion if he does he must either deny that any real member of Christs Body can do any notorious wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed or else he must condemn our Church for requiring the Minister of each Parish to repell such a Person from the Communion till either he makes actual recompence for the Injury or declare himself fully resolv'd to do it when conveniently he may If not then the meer consideration that such a man is really a a member of Christs Body does not oblige any in whose Power it is to admit him to all those Privileges 2. Does he hold that meer agreeing in Fundamentals is all that 's required to the being a real member of Christ If not then neither is that sufficient to qualifie a man for all the Privileges of Christian Communion 3. I suppose he will not deny that there are Practical as well as Speculative Fundamentals and I presume he is of Opinion That Obedience to our Lawful Governours in things Lawful is one of the Fundamentals of Practice If he denies the former he contradicts the Doctrin of some of his own Testimonies which affirm That there are Fundamental Articles of Faith without which Christian Faith cannot subsist nor Everlasting Life be obtain'd and That there are also Fundamental Heads of Discipline p. 56. and that those are so which promote and maintain the means of Salvation and without which we cannot live a Christian Life And that whosoever perishes must be separated from the Foundation by some Fundamental Error in Doctrin or in Practice which supposes that there are Fundamentals of Practice as well as Belief As to the latter he confesses pag. 187. of his Book That in those matters which are not apparently forbidden by the clear Word of God men ought to yield Obedience to the Commands of their Superiours and if he will own that they ought to do so on pain of Damnation as I hope he will then 't is a Fundamental Duty even in his own account That Christian therefore that does not think it such a Duty is by this Doctrin guilty of a Fundamental Error in reference to Christian Practice and he who does think it his duty and does not Act accordingly is guilty of a damnable Neglect Now I desire to know of this Author 1. Whether meer agreeing to Fundamentals whether of Belief or Practice that is assenting to them will constitute and continue a man a real member of Christs Body without at least resolving to Act accordingly if there be not time for more and the performance of that Resolution if there be 2. Whether differences in the Fundamentals of Practice will not hinder men from being real members of Christs Body 3. Whether though they agree in the Fundamentals of Practice that is own and assent to them as matter of necessary Duty in order to Salvation yet if they persist in the Neglect of any part of such Duty they ought to be own'd by the Church either as real members of Christ or as Persons to whom belong all the Privileges of Christian Communion If he says they ought I desire to know 4. Why they should be acknowled'gd as Persons rightly qualified for the Privileges of Christianity here or its Rewards hereafter who are either so Ignorant as not to know or so negligent as not to Practise that which Christianity has made Fundamentally necessary to Salvation to be both Known and Practised Particularly I would willingly be inform'd by this man whether account the preservation of the External Unity of the particular Church whether National Diocesan or Parochial of which men are members a Fundamental of Practice or no. If he does how can he account those Persons real members of Christs Body who are so far from preserving that Unity in either of those Churches that they industriously destroy it in all of them not submitting themselves to the Rules of Order and Government appointed for either of them If he does not then why does he 1. expresly Acknowledge That Schisms and Divisions do apparently dissolve the Church-Vnity And 2. by asking those questions pag. 28. of his Book implicitely Acknowledge That Persons become Schismatical by refusing to be One with us in Discipline and by renouncing Communion with us in our Publick Worship supposing there be nothing Evil in it And 3. pronounce all Separate Congregations Schismatical for their not being subject to the Government of our Diocesans p. 59. And then 4. Acknowledge the Sin of Schism to be an heinous destructive and pernicious Evil one of those fleshly works which they who do shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Chap. 2. pag. 24. 25. It must follow therefore from his own Principles and Concessions That they who are guilty of Schism are guilty of Erring in a Fundamental of Practice Now since Schism is by his own Confession so pernicious an Evil since by his own Confession also refusing to be One with the Church of England in Communion with its Publick Worship is a Breach and Dissolution of Church-Unity since also refusing subjection to the Government of our Diocesan Bishops is dissolving the Unity of Discipline and therefore Schismatical and since all separate Congregations in this Nation are in his own Opinion guilty of Schism 't is evident 1. That the members of those Congregations either do Not Agree in all the Fundamentals of Practice or else do Not Act suitably to that Agreement but are so far from it that they persist in Schismatical Practices contrary to the dictate of their Judgement and Conscience 2. That they are not of the same Communion with us and 3. That the Pleas which this Prefacer makes use of in their behalf pag. 58. viz. Their Agreement in Fundamentals and their being real members of Christs Body are very insufficient because by dissolving as much as in them lie the Unity of the Church of England and its Discipline they practically differ in a Fundamental
with those Constitutions also And I doubt himself is not so strong and hardy as to affirm that our Lyturgy and Diocesan Episcopacy are things founded on a Divine unchangeable Law And if they be not his Arguments will conclude against them as well as against the imposition of Ceremonies As for the Testimonies which follow pag. 23. 24. c. my Remarks on them are these 1. Some of them I confess seem to speak home to this Author's design and pretend that our Ceremonies ought to be abolish'd but if this Man's Book be fraught with no better Reasons to prove it than those mention'd by him out of the Epistles of Judicious Beza and Learned Zanchy I 'll be bold to say that it is good for little but to prove the Author a very weak Brother 2. He shewed himself too near of kin to such aâ— Brother in pretending pag. 23. That Calvin styl'd our Ceremonies Follies but owning that affirmed them Tolerable Follies and then writing a great Book himself to prove them intolerable But as to that Censure which Calvin is said to pass upon our Ceremonies see Durell's Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Cap. 12. where he makes it more than probable That that Censure was not meant of our Ceremonies nor of the English Lyturgy as it wa in it self at that time but as it was knavishly represented to him by the English Sectaries of those days 3. I observe that several of his Testimonies pag. 38. c. seem not to speak of the duty of the Governours of this or that particular Church to bear with and indulge the Members of their own Church in matters indifferent but of the Duty only of one Protestant Church pag. 40. 41. towards another viz. That if both Churches agree in Fundamentals their differences in other matters may be Tolerated pag. 38. 40. The Reformed Churches say the Geneva-Doctors pag. 40. ought to maintain a Brotherly Affection towards one another c. The Protestant-Churches says the Transylvanian pag. 41. are to be mov'd notwithstanding their differences to exercise Moderation Compassion and Mutual Toleration And so the Professors of Aberdeen pag. 42. 43. The possibility of this Exception the Prefacer himself was aware of and therefore endeavours to enervate it pag. 57. by Asking What reason can be given why these conditions of Communion betwixt Reformed Churches should not obtain amongst the Member of the same Christian Church And pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters As if there where no difference between two Societies neither of which is subject to or dependant upon the other nor have any Governour common to them both and the members of the same Society or several Societies united under and subject to such or such a Governour or Governours Where two Societies are independent one upon another there being no common Governour to take care of Order and the things relating to it among them each of them is left to the management of its respective Governour or Governours and to them the care of the Publick Worship to be perform'd by that Society belongs who therefore ought to see that it be performed in an orderly decent and reverent manner and to constitute such Modes Rites and Ceremonies as they judge most convenient to that End And when they have so done what has any other Church which in the Case suppos'd cannot justly pretend to any superiority over them I say what has such a Church to do to call in question their Constitutions in any Authoritative way I mean And therefore to talk of its being the duty of one Protestant Church to tolerate another that 's Independent upon it and differs from it in matters of outward Order is at least a very improper way of speaking If by tolerating those Testimonies mean only that they should not Censure and Condemn the other Church that so differs from them and if this Writer be of the same mind in this with the Authors of those dictates and if he be not why does he quote them as Testimonies favouring his pretensions then himself ought to pronounce Beza and Zanchy a little too pragmatical in quarrelling the Governours of the Church of England for their thinking fit to retain such and such Ceremonies But what does this Prefacer mean by Conditions of Communion and Preserving Communion in these questions Does it follow that because these Testimonies make it the Duty of one Protestant Church so far to Accord with another that agrees with it in Fundamentals and differs from it only in Rites and Ceremonies or other matters extra-Fundamental as not fastidiously to reject or Anathematise that Church P. 43. on Account of any such difference that therefore they make it the duty of each Church to admit the members of the other Church to all sorts of Communion meerly because they agree in Fundamentals If he fancy that to be their meaning let him instance if he can in any one Protestant Church that will receive others to Sacramental Communion meerly because they hold the Fundamentals of Christian Faith This Man has undertaken to maintain That things Indifferent ought not to be imposed as Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall partake of the publick Ordinances but does he imagine that if he go to Geneva he shall be admitted to the Communion there without submitting to the Ceremonies of Reception there enjoyn'd in particular that they 'll give it him unless he stands when he receives it I am sure Durell in the foremention'd Vindiciae Cap. 22. where he defends the Church of Englands imposing Kneeling on all Communicants tells us that in that it challenges no greater a Power to it self than other Reformed Churches do pag. 235. And that as the Churches of the Lutheran Confession will give the Communion only to those that Kneel so the French and Geneva Churches will give it to none but such as Stand in the Act of Receiving Whereas therefore this Author would gladly know pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the Members of the same Church though disagreeing in such Matters I Answer That the Communion which his own Testimonies speak of as preserv'd thereby is only for ought I see that which consists in not Censuring and Anathematising or Disowning them as True Churches though differing in such matters which as it scarce deserves the Name of Communion so 't is too far remov'd from the Nature of that Communion which this Book pleads for to make these Testimonies pertinent to that Plea And whereas he pretends in the same Page that the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned
of Christianity And by being Schismaticks they disown themselves to be Persons of the same Communion with us nay are guilty of a capital Error and a customary Crime which excludes men while impenitently persever'd in from the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore they ought not while in those circumstances to be accounted persons of the same Communion with us or real members of Christs Body I have now consider'd several things which I thought fit to be taken notice of in this Preface and in the many Testimonies quoted by the Prefacer as so many justifications of the design of his Book But how ill they are suited to that purpose at least for the generality of them is I think apparent enough from the Reflexions I have here made upon them But I wish heartily I had been in or near some Library where I might have had the opportunity of examining the quotations and consulting the Authors quoted for then possibly I might have discovered much more impertinency in the quotations and insincerity in the quoter 'T is plain the Author has ingag'd himself in a very bold Attempt He has undertaken to prove That things indifferent which may be changed and altered without sin ought not especially under our present Circumstances to be impos'd by Superiours as the Conditions of Communion or of ministration in Sacred Things And consequently he has undertaken to prove That all Churches or States who have so imposed Indifferents have by that Imposition been guilty of violating the Law of God To Excuse which Attempt from the prejudice of Singularity he pretends pag. 3. to strengthen it in his Preface against that and other prejudices by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy persons both of our own and other Churches who have declar'd themselves as he would perswade us to be of the same Judgment and have pursu'd the same Design Now besides all that has been already objected to those Suffrages if I had the opportunity of doing it I would challenge the Author to evince that any tolerable number of the Suffrages which he has produc'd are pertinent and punctual to his design as worded by himself That design consists of Two Parts one more general That things indifferent which may be alter'd without Sin ought not to be impos'd as the Condition of Communion or ministration in Sacred Things The other more particular That especially they ought not to be impos'd under our present Circumstances as the Conditions of Communion with us of the Church of England The Suffrages produc'd to rescue this design from the imputation of Singularity amount in the Contents of the Preface to about 35. Now let him manifest if he can 1. That so much as one of those Suffrages speaks particularly of our present Circumstances here in England I mean those Circumstances that were present to the publishing of his Book 2. Let him manifest if he can That among his 35 Suffrages there are so many as five that affirm it unlawful to make Indifferents which are Alterable without Sin the Conditions of Church-Communion and Ministration Nay I doubt he cannot manifest that so much as one of them comes fully up to this design of his Book But if the major part or two parts in three of the Testimonies be impertinent what shall we think of that man who has the confidence and conscience to write at such a rate and pretend so much when the proof falls so intolerably short of the pretense Besides if my memory fail me not I have seen a Book heretofore which Answer'd Cressy against Dr. Pierce's Sermon meerly by quoting passages out of Authors extant before that Book of Cressy's which contained sufficient Answers to the most material parts of it And I believe that this Author could have done the like in reference to this Preface I mean that he could have heaped up as many and as pertinent Testimonie out of the Writings of single Persons and Acknowledgments of Church-Societies in favour of this Position That it is lawful to make things Indifferent which may be altered without Sin the conditions of Church-Communion and Ministration as he has pretended here in favour of the Contradictory and if he could I leave it to you to judge with what sincerity he could profess Pref. pag. 1. that he was most unwilling to do the least dis-service to the Church of which he is a member when he has in this Preface done it the grand dis-service of heaping up such a multitude of pretended Testimonies against the lawfulness of her Practice and omitting the much greater number of pertinent Suffrages which I have some reason to believe himself could have as easily produced in defence of that Practice But this Profession of his is very obnoxious upon another Account for if he were at all sincere in making it what ail'd him 1. to Print his Book at such a time And 2. in English At such a time when he Acknowledges pag. 9. that the Bishops themselves have neither any Power to make such Concessions as his Book would have to be made no nor any Power to make any Proposals for the healing of our breaches till by his Majesty's Authority they meet in Convocation for that end And I do not think that this Gentleman had any prospect of a Parliaments being called soon after the publication of his Book or that it is an Article of his Faith that his Majesty may summon a Convocation to meet to that end out of Parliament and then what could the publishing of such a Book at such a time be but the promoting on his part that which has been of late the grand Fanatical Design of such weak Brethren as Baxter Alsop Troughton c. viz. the rendring our Governors both in Church and State odious by representing their Constitutions as unlawful and attempting to prove them contradictory both to the Commands and Example of Christ and his Apostles But what ail'd him 2. to compose and print his Book in English was it because he expected either a Parliament or Convocation whose major part should be made up of Clergy-men or Gentlemen so ill bred as not to understand Latin or did not the Author understand it himself so well as to write a Book in it or did he publish it in English for the sake of the weak Brethren and the devout Sisters that they might be furnished with Arguments against Ceremony-Imposing-Laws from one end of the Gospels and Epistles to the other For he has shewed himself so dexterous in discerning and multiplying prejudices and exceptions against such Constitutions that 't is to be hoped a little more improvement of his Topical Parts may gain him Parker's faculty of Espying in those Impositions in general as he did in the Use of the Cross in particular a contradiction to all the Ten Commandments Now for a man to put forth such a Book against those Impositions for the sake of illiterate English men who 1. have no power at present to retrench or null the
REMARKS ON THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reconciler IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND LONDON Printed by J. Wallis for Joanna Brome at the Gun in St. Paul's Church-yard 1683. SIR HAving Read and Consider'd the Preface to The Protestant Reconciler I now send you these Remarks upon it The Author professes Pag. 58. of that Preface That he does from his heart Conform to all that is requir'd by the Church of England and yet a great part of the Preface is employ'd in producing Testimonies against the Lawfulness not only of the Imposition it self but also of the things Impos'd we are told p. 25. out of Beza's Epistle to Bishop Grindal That Men so oft do grievously Sin as they do introduce into the Church of God any Ceremonies significative of Spiritual things and that all Symbolical Rites should be entirely excluded from the Christian Church And this forsooth must have a Hand set over against it in the margin as if it ought to be taken for some very precious and valuable Truth We are told also by the same Divine p. 26. That the Right of Crossing is not to be reckon'd among things Indifferent but as a thing rather to be destroyed than the brazen Serpent of Hezekias That they do best of all who are as diligent in the Abolishing the Rites of Crossing in Baptism and Kneeling at the Sacrament as they would be in Abolishing open Idolatry And this also is thought fit to be Printed in another Character and to be mark'd out with a marginal Hand as if 't were a Maxim of Infallible Truth A great many other Reproaches of our Ceremonies and their Imposition are transcribed into the following Pages as p. 27. That the Imposing our English Ceremonies is a falling back to worse than the Ceremonies of Moses to the Trifles and Refuse of human Traditions That Queen Elizabeth was carry'd with a Zeal not according to Knowledge in Commanding the Vse of them Pag. 28. And that by that Imposition the Fire of Contention was to the incredible offence of the Godly as it were raised from Hell That the white Linen Garments requir'd to be Vsed in Divine Service are at the least signs of Idolatry and Popish Superstition with the Vse whereof Ministers defile themselves and give offence to the Weak by their Example That to retain those Garments is to destroy the whole Body of the Church That they ought not be Imposed Pag. 30. because all things are to be abandon'd which may any way either by themselves or by accident desile Gods Worship because they are contrary to the Purity of the Apostolical Worship and smell of Popish Superstion and are neither available to the Edification of the Godly nor to Order nor for Ornament except that which is Whorish Because all Godly men will be offended with the Decree concerning Apparel And it may much further Vngodliness and at least give occasion of many Evils and very grievous Superstitions and the very Occasions of Evils are to be shun'd because 't is God's Will p. 31. That after the Death of Christ all Garments of Aaron and Levi should be Abolish'd That the Lord himself Commanded that all Vngodly and Vain Ceremonies should be driven away when he charg'd utterly to destroy all things which appertain'd to those who should give Counsel to follow strange Gods and to burn their Garments and all their Stuff with Fire that they might be an execrable thing unto the Lord. Because the Imposing them ministers Offence to the Consciences of Weak Believers which to do is very grievous and distastful to the Holy Spirit and that Paul's Example of resolving always to abstain from Flesh rather than offend his Brother gives a general Rule taken out of the Doctrin of Christ viz. That no Indifferent thing is to be admitted and yielded to much less to be Vrg'd upon others and least of all to be Commanded by Decree if in the Admitting Vrging and Commanding of it the Minds of Good Men and Consciences of the Faithful be Offended Now this Prefacer did either look upon these kind of paultry Argumentations against our Ceremonies and their Imposition and these and a great many other Censorious Reproaches of them as Valid Arguings and Justifiable Reproaches or he did not if he did not to what end has he taken the Pains to Transcribe them unless he had a Fanatick Design of rendring our Church and State-Constitutions odious by so doing But if he does really judge them Valid and Justifiable he is a strange Man that can from his heart Conform to all that is required by the Church of England and yet imagine not only the imposing and requiring the Use of its Ceremonies to be both without and against the Command of God but also the things requir'd and impos'd to be some of them Signs of Idolatry and Popish Superstition that Ministers defile themselves with the use of them that they are only for Whorish Ornament and such as whereat the Minds of Good Men and the Consciences of the Faithful are Offended and that such things ought not for that very reason either to be Imposed or so much as Admitted or Yielded to Besides if he has Transcribed them as Reproaches in his own Opinion justifiable he has by quoting those Passages out of other Writings made them his own And he has too plainly done so in his re-capitulation p. 43. where he expresly Affirms That judicious Beza truly saith that these things viz. Ceremonies required by the Church of England are not only unnecessary but profitable for little if a Man use them aright And as if this were not Reproach enough this Prefacer has no more Wit nor Judgement than to Add and when they Accidentally do minister to Schisnt and all its fatal Consequences and then again to Approve it as truly said by Beza That to impose such Ceremonies is to labour about Hay and Stubble or rather things more vain than they And himself Affirms That sad Experience shews that they bring no Profit but many Evils to the Church and that 't is our Duty to shun the Occasion of those Evils By which Approbation of and Compliance with these Censures of things required and imposed in our Church I humbly conceive he has incurr'd the Penalty of Excommunication which is Decreed by Can. 4. against those who Affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England Established by Law and Contained in the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a Corrupt Superstitious or Vnlawful Worship of God or Containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures By Can. 6. against those Who Affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law Established are Wicked Antichristian or Superstitious By Can. 10. Consequentially For that Canon Excommunicated those Separatists from the Church of England who take upon them the Name of another Church and presume to publish that this their pretended Church hath a long time Groaned under the Burden of
certain Grievances imposed upon the Members thereof by the Church of England And 't is the drift of this Man's Preface and Book to load the Church it self with the Burden of this Reproachful Complaint Besides the Opinion which this Prefacer owns as true That the Ceremonies required in the Church of England do bring no Profit but many Evils to the Church is a flat Contradiction to the Doctrin of the 30th Canon touching the Use of the Cross in Baptism viz. That the Christians shortly after the Apostles Time used it in all their Actions thereby making an outward Shew and Profession even to the Astonishment of the Jews that they were not ashamed to Acknowledge Him for their Lord and Saviour who Dyed for them upon the Cross And this Sign they did not only use themselves with a kind of Glory when they met with any Jews but signed therewith their Children when they were Christned to dedicate them by that Badge to His Service whose Benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism the Name of the Cross did represent and this Vse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church as well by the Greeks as the Latins with one consent and great applause at what time if any had opposed themselves against it they would certainly have been Censur'd as Enemies of the Name of the Cross and consequently of Christs Merits the sign whereof they could no better endure And what must this Prefacer then be counted who in complyance with Father Beza Father Zanchy and Father Calvin as he pretends Pag. 23. Censur'd this and other Ceremonies as Fooleries and the endeavouring to uphold them as Labouring about Hay and Stubble or rather about things more vain than they and brands them as things bringing no Profit but many Evils to the Church whereas this Canon you see expresly teaches the contrary and tho' it Acknowledges that in process of time the sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome especially after the Corruption of Popery had once possessed it yet withal it affirms that the Abuse of a thing doth not take away the Lawful Vse of it Nay so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England says the Canon to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy France Spain Germany or any such like Churches in all things which they held and practised that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth it doth with reverence retain those Ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God nor offend the minds of Sober Men. In which respect among some other very Ancient Ceremonies the sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been retained in the Church For the very remembrance of the Cross which is very precious to all them that rightly Believe in Jesus Christ and in the other respects mention'd the Church of England hath retained still the sign of â—â—…in Baptism following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounting it a Lawful Outward Ceremony and Honourable Badge whereby the Infant is Dedicated to the Service of Him that dy'd upon the Cross In the next place I observe that this Prefacer confesses Pag. 9. that the Bishops themselves have no Power to dispense with the Laws for Uniformity or to make any Proposals for the healing of our Breaches and if they have no such Power I wonder upon what grounds this Author assumes to himself the Power of making such Proposals and such as would destroy the Act of Uniformity and Metamorphose the Common-Prayer-Book into a Directory I know he has produced the Testimony of King James King Charles the First and King Charles the Second to justifie the design of his Book but with how little Reason Candor and Ingenuity he has done it I shall leave you to judge when you have consider'd the reflexions I have to make upon them As to that of K. James it may suffice 1. To remember that notwithstanding that excellent determination as the Prefacer styles it his Majesty was so far from changing or antiquating or so much as dispensing with the Ceremonies of the Church of England that he ratified them anew and gave those Divines who appear'd against them at the Conference at Hampton-Court a Severe Reprimand for scrupling Conformity to them upon such inconsiderable Reasons as were then urg'd for those Scruples and this Establishment he continued all his Reign 2. To take Notice that whereas this Writer calls that which Casaubon represents as K. James his Opinion a golden Sentence and which fully justifies all which he pleads for the words of that Golden Sentence as quoted by himself do only affirm That those things which by the Constitutions of Men without the Word of God were for a time received into the Church of God may be Changed Mollified Antiquated And this too is so far from being there his Majesties peremptory Determination that 't is only said his Majesty Thinks Conceives Believes they may be antiquated Whereas this Writer is not content to think our Church-Constiâ—utions May be but the whole scope of his Book is to prove they Ought to be alter'd and antiquated 3. That which his Majesty is said to Believe does in the quotation refer not to All but only to Most Ecclesiastical Observations and therefore it is not evident from that quotation That our Church-Ceremonial-Observations are in the number of those which the King Conceived might be antiquated For which reasons this first quotation signified little to this Writers purpose supposing it a Candid and Impartial quotation which because I have not that Epistle by me I have not at present the opportunity of examining But if this Prefacer has treated King James in this Testimony no more candidly and ingenuously than he has King Charles in the next he has in plain English play'd the Knave with two Kings For hapning to have the Exact Collections by me I consulted the Kings Answer to that Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom and there found p. 26. of that Collection immediately after the words by him quoted these following Provided that this Case be attempted and pursued with that modesty temper and submission that in the mean time the Peace and Quiet of the Kingdom be not disturbed the Decency and Comliness of Gods Service discountenanced nor the Pious Sober and Devout Actions of those Reverend Persons who were the first Labourers in the Blessed Reformation scandalised and defamed Which Proviso being added does so cramp and consine the Condescension spoken of in the former words that they are on that account rendred insignificant to the Writers design and so they are upon another For they only say That his Majesty would willingly comply with the Advice of a Parliament for the making a Law to Exempt Tender-Consciences from Punishment or Prosecution but does not say either that 't was the duty of a Parliament to give him such Advice nor that it was his own duty to comply with it when given and yet nothing
less than this will suffice to make this or any other Testimony pertinent and adequate to this Authors attempt For which reason therefore his next Testimony from the Declaration of King Charles the Second is as insignificant to his purpose as this For neither in that from Breda nor in the other concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs does his Majesty Acknowledge it his Duty at that time not to impose the use of the Ceremonies on Tender Consciences nor if he had would it thence follow either that it is or that his Majesty thinks it his duty now to gratifie them by such an Indulgence and yet even this also is requisite to make Testimonies pertinent to our Authors design which as himself words it p. 4. of his Book is to prove that things indifferent which may be changed and altered without Sin or violation of Gods Laws ought not especially under our present Circumstances to be imposed by Superiors as the Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall minister in sacred things Besides who that has any sense of the measures and obligations of Loyalty or so much as Civility can think it tolerable in any man especially in a Church-man as this Author is said to be to treat the King at this rate and to urge this Declaration in the behalf of Dissenters now when t is so well known that his Majesty himself thought fit to vacate it within two years after its publication by consenting to the Act of Parliament for Uniformity which Act acquaints us that his Majesty had duly considered the Book of Common-Prayer as then framed which re-imposed the use of the Ceremonies and had fully approved and allowed the same and recommended it to that Parliament that the said Book should be Appointed to be used under such Sanctions and Penalties as the House of Parliament should thing fit From which Approbation and Consent of his Majesty we ought to conclude that he was then made very sensible how unworthy the Dissenters were of that Liberty which he at first designed them and how mischievous 't would prove to the Concerns both of Church and State and that 't was neither just nor reasonable it should be allowed them And accordingly that Act assures us that nothing conduceth more to the setling of the Peace of this Nation nor to the honour of our Religion and the Propagation thereof then an universal Agreement in the Publick Worship of Almighty God An excellent determination this and a very golden sentence and yet this Gentleman pretends humbly to conceive the quite contrary p. 8. and to think that the united Judgement of the whole Nation cannot frame a better or a more unexceptionable Expedient for a firm and lasting Concord then the Liberty indulged by the Kings Declaration which required neither Ceremonies nor Subscription nor Oath of Canonical Obedience But I confess he speaks there of an Expedient for a firm and lasting Concord of these distracted Churches by which expression what the man means would perhaps be worth the knowing and the rather because the word Churches is printed in a different Character A suspicious man may reasonably enough conjecture that he honours the Conventicles of Separatists with the Name of Churches in opposition to Canon 10. before cited if not what Churches in England are so distracted as to render his unexceptionable Expedient necessary to their Concord But is not that a very pleasant Question which he puts p. 9. If as the Kings Royal Word assures us the Reverend Bishops in the Year 60. did think such Concessions made by his Royal Person and Authority to allay the then present distempers very Just and Reasonable and cheerfully would conform themselves thereunto why should we now conceive they should be of another mind in 82 To which Question I Answer seriously 1. That the Kings Royal Word as quoted by this Writer p. 6. does not assure us that the Bishops did then think so but only that his Majesty had not the least doubt but that they would think so However on supposition he had quoted the Kings Words truly p. 39. I Answer 2. We may well conceive it because his Majesty himself was of another mind in 62. and appears now to be of the same mind he was then being so far from indulging that he commands the Laws to be vigorously executed against Dissenters But does this man indeed fancy that the Case and Reason of things is the same now in 82. that those parts of the King's Declaration which he has quoted represent it to have been in 60 Has he the Simplicity to believe himself or the Confidence to desire others to believe that the Dissenters are as innocent now as that Declaration acquaints us his Majesty then found those whom he Confer'd with Can he tell us where these Presbyterians are now to be met with who shew themselves as it seems those did at the time there spoken of Persons full of Affection towards the King or Zeal for the Peace of the Church and State and neither Enemies to Episcopacy nor Liturgy but modestly desire such Alterations in either as without shaking the Foundations may best allay the present distempers or can he tell us where those men of other Persuasions are now to be found who all approve Episcopacy and a set Form of Lyturgy p. 6. Nay have not the Leaders of several Parties sadly demonstrated themselves to be men of a quite contrary temper since the discovery of the Popish Plot some employing the best Reason some the best Wit they had others the most ungodly Arts that a lying slandring spiteful malicious humor could supply them with to the prejudice of our Church and its Constitutions and to the rendring not only its Ceremonies but also its Episcopacy and Lyturgy Odious and Ridiculous But whatever others may possibly think of our Bishops and their averseness from condescending in matters of Ceremony this Prefacer p. 9. prosesses to think with the Reverend Dean of Canterbury that we have no cause to doubt but the Governours of our Church are Persons of that Piety and Prudence that for Peace sake and in order to a firm Vnion among Protestants they would be content if that would do it not to insist on little things but yield them up to the infirmity or importunity of those that differ from them Which Passage having been long since ingeniously descanted upon in a Polio-Pamphlet whose Title I cannot now call to mind I shall let it pass but not without this Profession that I hope there is now no one Bishop nor would-be-Bishop Living who would yield and yield and yield up so much of the Church-Constitutions to Dissenters till he has left the Dissenters nothing to yield up to the Church In p. 10. the Learned and Judicious Judge Hale is brought in as a Favourer of Condescension to moderate Non-conformists and as one who drew up a Bill for Comprehension of some and a limited Indulgence to others And this we are told upon
the Credit of Dr. Burnet whose Testimony Valeat quantum valere potest Nay he is brought in as one who declar'd it his Judgement That the only means to heal us was a new Act of Vniformity which should neither leave all at Liberty nor impose any thing but Necessary And this we are told upon the Credit of Mr. Baxter who I doubt may say as the Dr. aforesaid does of himself in the Preface p. 8. to his History of the Rights of Princes I know this will not be the more believed for my saying it Now that 't is not naturally Impossible that such words should be spoken by Judge Hale who can deny but that he did actually declare his judgement in those Terms who can believe that is at all acquainted with the Parts and Intellectuals of that Great Man For sure he had more Wit than to call that an Act for Vniformity which would leave men at Liberty as to the Order Modes Circumstances and Ceremonies of Publick Worship and more Consideration than not to reflect that an Act which imposes nothing but what 's Necessary will certainly leave men to that Liberty and a Person of more Skill in the measures of Government and the needs of Human Society than to propose That as the only means for the healing the breaches of this Nation in matters of Religion which was never yet made use of for the Cementing of any National Society of men or the effecting Union and Concord among them For I dare Challenge this Author if I had the opportunity to shew me where there is or ever was such a Society whose Union Order and Government was conserv'd or design'd to be conserv'd by the imposing on them nothing but necessary things meaning by necessary things such only as God's Word has made so and as are contra-distinguish'd to all things in their own nature Indifferent and so this Prefacer must understand this Testimony if it be pertinent to the design of his Book The 16. 17. and 18. Pages are taken up wiâ—h Dr. Stillingfleet's Opinion touching this Affair which because I had occasion to consider soon after that Book of his the Vnreasonableness of Separation was publish'd I shall now impart to you the result of that consideration which was 1. That if any one should affirm That that Preface of the Doctors had destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And 2. That it has effectually destroyed that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book I did not see how the Doctor could purge himself from the Accusation In the third Part of the Book and twenty sixth Section the Doctor defends our Churches Terms of Communion and proves that there 's no Unlawfulness in them particularly not in the sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion the Religious Observation of Holidays the constant Vse of the Lyturgy nor the Vse of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism The Lawfulness of all which except that of the constant Vse of the Lyturgy which he Acknowledges-done very well to his hand by Dr. Falkner he defends by Answering whatsoever was urg'd against them by his Adversaries Pag. 332 333. c. And yet in the Preface p. 83. he represents it as most adviseable either wholly to take away the Sign of the Cross or to leave it Indifferent as the Parents shall desire or not desire besides which he would have Kneeling at the Sacrament dispensed with as to those that scruple it and several Alterations made in the setled Practice of our Church as to the Use of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism And to justifie this changing of our Church-Constitutions he makes use of such a Motive and Argument as the truth is if it prove any thing proves those Constitutions unlawful and therefore that they ought to be abolish'd For 1. What less than this can reasonably be inferr'd from these words of his p. 82. I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Barrs that is the matter of the Dissenters scruplings and excepâ—ings against the Sacramental Offices from a freedome in joyning in full Communion with us The most obvious and pertinent meaning of which words is That it is such a part of Wisdome and Condescension as Christianity obliges our Governors to and if they are obliged to it by vertue of the Christian Religion it is certainly their duty to be so Wise and Condescending But 2. in the immediately preceding Lines he urges this Argument for that Condescension viz. because the Vse of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all Exception and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them Which Argument if valid will effectually destroy not only the prescription of those Ceremonies but several other things of the like kind which the men of Scruples are or shall be pleased to except against particularly 't will be as valid against the Use of a set Form of words in those and other sacred Administrations because even that discourages abundance of scrupulous Persons from joyning in any of the Publick Services of our Church all which therefore will be effectually destroyed by that Argumentation Besides which he mentions p. 92. several other mutations for the satisfaction of the scrupulous which p. 93. he thinks reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union As the explaining or amending some more doubtful and obscure passages in the Common-Prayer-Book the use of the New Translation of the Psalms in Parochial Churches at least the charging of the Apochrypha-Lessons for portions of Canonical Scripture the leaving at liberty those Expressions in the Office for Burial which suppose the good Estate of the Person buried the restoring the Rubrick about the Salvation of Infants to its former place in the Office of Confirmation and so removing the present exceptions against it by which last I confess I do not well know what he means because I do not discern how the placing it in the Office of Confirmation will remove the present scruples against it those scruples being about its truth and the Proposition contain'd in that Rubrick will certainly be no truer in one Office than in the other Now since 't is plain that the Preface does thus endeavour to undermine and destroy so many of our Church-Constitutions which yet the Book endeavours to uphold and maintain and since he does it by an Argument which if rational and cogent does as plainly infer the continuing those Constitutions especially those of them that belong to the Sacraments to be no part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in our Governours but inconsistent with it and with that freeness from all exceptions which ought to be the constant Attendant of those Administrations I think 't is evident that the Preface does at least virtually and consequentially destroy and render unlawful what the Book defends
as lawful Nay I do not discern what consistency there is between one part of the Preface and another part between the allowing the fore-mentioned mutations as reasonable and necessary Pag. 82. and 93. and this passage Pag. 89. which implies they are neither necessary nor reasonable For there he says we do heartily and sincerely desire Vnion with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it if any Expedient can be found out for the Ease of other mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without Reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no True Son of the Church of England will oppose it Now whether the fore-mention'd dispensings with and Retrenchments of our Church-Orders and Practices upon the fore-mention'd Reason and Argument for the sake of Union with them whom he is pleas'd to call Brethren be not so far a giving up the Cause of the Church as to condemn its Constitution and to make the Ceremonies unlawful which have hitherto been observed and practised in it I leave you to judge as also whether the taking in Dissenters upon such Terms will not necessarily reflect reproach and dishonour upon the Reformation of that Church which at her first Reforming thought fit to retain and impose those Constitutions and Ceremonies as just and reasonable and as such hath ever since continu'd them without imagining that continu'd Imposition inconsistent with Christian Wisdom or with any regard that 's justly due to the Scruples and Exceptions of troublesome men relating to the Administration of Sacraments in a Christian Church To which troublesome Men the Dr. is pleased to give the Title of Brethren more than once in the later end of the Preface which is it self in my Opinion too absurd a contradiction to that Book whose main design is to prove them Schismaticks He tells us Pag. 364. That 't was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to Practice than were made so at the Settlement of the Reformation but whether there be sufficient reason to alter those Terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless I do not says he take upon me here to determin And I wish he had not taken it upon him in the Preface especially to determin it so much to the Reproach and Dishonour of our Church as to imply she hath hitherto been guilty of Transgressing the Obligation of Christianity in not making those Alterations for the sake of Union with such Persons whose Scruples are groundless and endless and which as himself Affirms p. 372. might be remov'd by a little Impartiality and â—lue consideration there being no depth of Learning no subtilty of Reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about them but the dispute lies in such a narrow compass that men may see light if they will And why ours or indeed any Church should be Reproached as Defective in Christian Wisdom for not complying with such humersom Persons or not altering her Constitutions for the sake of such wilfully blind and perverse Dissenters I confess I do nor understand Now these Premises being duly consider'd do I think abundantly justifie the first charge and make it too reasonable to adhere to this conclusion that the Doctors Preface hath destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And in reference to the other charge that the Preface has effectually destroy'd that Church of England which the Doctor had taken pains to defend in his Book The same premises do really contribute so much to the making it good that for ought I see no more need to be added to that End than the bare application of them to that Censure and to the Doctor 's own Notion of the Church of England For he asserts p. 249. of his Book that the National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are Establish'd by the Laws of this Realm And Pag. 302. All Bishops Ministers and People taken together who profess the Faith so Establish'd and worship God according to the Rules so Appointed make up this National Church of England And this is the Church of England which the Doctor has taken pains to defend in his Book If therefore the Church of England takes its denomination not only from the Profession of that Faith but also from its consent in Worshipping God according to such and such Rules he that would destroy those Rules will consequently destroy that Church which is denominated such and diversified from other Churches by its embracing and adhering to those Rules But it appears from the premises that the Doctor 's Preface would have several considerable Alterations made of those Rules and that upon such an account and for such reasons as do consequentially destroy that Order and those Rules of Worship that are Established by Law and therefore that Preface does effectually destroy that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book These are all the things says the Dr. which appear to me reasonable to be Allowed in order to an Vnion and which I suppose may be Granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church And says this Writer these are all I plead for in this Book But 1. there is this little difference between these Authors The Reverend Dean supposes they may be Granted but this Author endeavours to prove they ought to be Granted 2. Though that Author mentions only such and such things as appearing to him reasonable to be Allowed yet to make them appear so to others he urges an Argument which will infer it as reasonable to dispense with a great many other things not mention'd And so though this Author pretends that these are all he pleads for in his Book yet the Arguments he makes use of if they prove any thing prove it the duty of our Governours to dispense with a great many more Constitutions even all that enjoyn any Indifferents whereby our Brother is offended Chap. 3. And therefore whereas he adds here As for those who deny the lawfulness of Lyturgy and the right Constitution of our Churches and who would be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop and set up Congregations separate and independent upon him I know not how to plead for them without pleading for Schism Confusion and Disorder I doubt his Arguments will if they prove any thing prove it as unlawful for Governours to impose a Lyturgy and require Obedience to Episcopal Government as to impose Ceremonies For I am confident he is very sensible that a great many whom he seemed to account weak Brethren are mightily offended
in all Places where Christianity obtains If Crossing Kneeling Surplice he needful to be used in the Church of England why not in all the Churches of the Saints If they are needful or expedient for Order Vniformity for Reverence and Decency in this Age Why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles liv'd and through all subsequent Ages of the Church If therefore Christ did neither by himself nor his Apostles who form'd the first Church and deliver'd us his mind institute and impose these Rites then either the imposing them is needless or else you must say that Christ hath omitted what was needful to the due performance of his Worship which seemeth to imply that either he was ignorant what to do or careless and neglective of his own Affairs which cannot be Asserted without Blasphemy A shrewd Argument I confess in the consequences of it if allowed for a good Argument but 't is really so pitiful a Ratiocination as to this Prefacer's design in quoting it that I believe Baxter himself has Wit and Reason enough still left him if still living to laugh at any man that should be wheedl'd by it into a perswasion that it is unlawful for any Church or State to impose such and such Rites and Ceremonies as it thinks most convenient for Order Uniformity Reverence and Decency Because those Ceremonies were never imposed by Christ or his Apostles But that which I mention it for is this to manifest what kind of quoter this man hath shewn himself Any Reader who views the quotation and the lines of it mark'd each of them with two little hooks may justly think that the lines so mark'd consist only of Baxter's words and in the same order as disposed by Baxter himself in that Chapter Section and Reason but it is so far from being so that 1. These words This seems to be coming after Christ to amend his Laws correct his Works and make better Laws and Ordinances for his Church than he himself hath done are not Baxter's words in that Paragraph of that Disputation as Printed with the other four in 1659 which I believe is the only Edition of those Disputations of Church-Government but this man 's own unless he has quoted them at second hand from some falsifyer of Testimonies 2. Whereas in the quotation 't is If they viz. Crossing Kneeling Surplice are needful or expedient for Order Vniformity for Reverence and Decency in this Age why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles liv'd and through all subsequent Ages of the Church this Clause also and Question is not Mr. Baxters but this mans own or some body's that has imposed upon him 3. Whereas the Prefacer concludes the quotation with these words which cannot be Asserted without Blasphemy Baxter's words are only which are not to be imagined Now 2. Neither of these variations are allowable in any Testimony that is published as a just and exact quotation as any Reader would guess this to be by the manner of printing it But 3. The second Clause is such an addition as is altogether intolerable for Baxter doth not there dispute against the Ceremonies of Crossing and Surplice considered as expedient for Order Vniformity Reverence and Decency But as things pretended by him to be Mystical Symbolical Sacramental Rites and his reasoning such as it is is there directed against them only under that Notion for this Author therefore to quote him as there applying that reasoning to our Ceremonies considered as Needful or Expedient for Order Vniformity c. is not to quote but to invent and falsifie and therefore 4. If the rest of this Gentleman's quotations which I have not the opportunity of examining are of the same complexion with this he must in all reason be concluded either a Knavish quoter himself or a quoter at second hand from some body that was so But supposing Baxter had reason'd so simply as for ought I know he may in some other part of his writings as this Prefacer makes him to do in that Paragraph against mens appointing such and such Ceremonies as needful for Order Uniformity Reverence and Decency I shall annex an wholsome Testimony-Antidote against the venom of it which I find quoted to my hands from Mr. Calvin I hope with more honesty and fidelity than this is Mr. Baxter by Dr. Hooke in his judicious Answer to Baxter's Petition for Peace pag. 150. in these words Let us hold thsi That if we see in every Society of men some Policy to be necessary which may serve to nourish common Peace and to retain Concord if we see that in the doing of things there is always some Orderly Form which is behoveful for publick honesty and for very humanity not to be refus'd the saine ought chiefly to be observ'd in Churches which are both best maintained by a well-fram'd disposition of all things and without Agreement are no Churches at all Therefore if we will have the safety of the Church well provided for we must altogether diligently procure that which St. Paul commandeth That all things be done Comely and according to Order But forasmuch as there is so great diversity in the manners of men so great variety in minds so great disagreements in judgements and wits neither is there any Policy stedfast enough unless it be Established by certain Laws nor any orderly usage can be observed without a certain appointed Form therefore we are so far off from condemning the Laws that are profitable to this purpose that we affirm that when these be taken away Churches are dissolved from their sinews and utterly deformed and scatter'd abroad for this which St. Paul requireth That all things be done decently and in Order cannot be had unless the Order it self and Comeliness be Established with observations adjoyned as with certain Bonds But this only thing is always to be excepted in those Observations That they be not either believed to be necessary to Salvation and so bind Consciences with Religion or be applyed to the Worship of God and so Godliness be reposed in them But pag. 152. it is good yet to define more plainly what is comprehended under that Comeliness which St. Paul commendeth and also what under Order The end of Comeliness is partly that when such Ceremomies are used as may procure a Reverence to holy things we may by such helps be stirred up to Godliness partly also that the Modesty and Gravity which ought to be seen in all honest doings may therein principally appear In Order this is the first Point That they which Govern may know the Rule and Law to Govern well and the People which are governed may be Accustom'd to Obeying of God and to right Discipline Then that the state of the Church being well fram'd Peace and Quietness may be provided for Verily because the Lord hath in his holy Oracles both faithfully contain'd and clearly set forth both the whole sum of true Righteousness and all the parts of the
Worshipping of his Divine Majesty and whatsoever was necessary to Salvation therefore in these things he is only to be heard as our School-Master But because in outward Discipline and Ceremony his Will was not to prescribe each thing particularly what we ought to follow because he foresaw this to hang upon the state of Times and did not think one Form to be sit for all Ages herein we must flee to those general Rules which he hath given that thereby all those things should be tryed which the necessity of the Church shall require to be Commanded for Order and Comeliness Finally forasmuch as he hath therefore taught nothing expresly because these things are not necessary to Salvation and according to the Manners of every Nation and Age ought diversly to be applyed to the Edifying of the Church therefore as the Profit of the Church shall require it shall be convenient as well to Change and Abrogate those that be used as to institute New I grant indeed that we ought not rashly nor oft nor for light Causes to run to Innovation but what may hurt or edifie Charity shall best judge which if we suffer to be the Governess all shall be safe Now it is the duty of Christian People to keep such things as have been ordain'd according to this Rule with a free Conscience and without any superstition but yet with a godly and easie readiness to obey not to despise them nor to pass them over with careless negligence so far is it off that they ought by Pride and Obstinacy openly to break them What manner of Liberty of Conscience wilt thou say may there be in so great Observation and Wariness Yes it shall stand excellently well when we shall consider that they are not stedfast and perpetual stayed Laws whereunto we are bound but outward rudiments for the weakness of men which though we do not all need yet we do all use them because we are mutually bound to one another to nourish Charity among us Thus says Dr. Hooke Mr. Calvin delivers his judgment directly contrary to yours meaning Mr. Baxter's as expressed in that Petition for Peace I add and directly contrary to that which our Prefacer here quotes as his shrew'd Argumentation but perfectly consentient to the Church of England and we find his practice according with his judgment he put the Yoke of Discipline upon the Neck of the Senate and People of Geneva and bound them to it with an Oath and he declares for a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites from which it may not be lawful for the Pastors to depart in their Function You see hereby how far Calvin was from the Opinion That Churches either should be govern'd without Ceremonies or indeed can be govern'd if nothing be imposed on their Members but what is necessary I know 't is easie to dictate as some men are said to do in this Preface That all necessary things are so plain in Scripture that men may soon agree in what is necessary and conclude the no-necessity of agreeing in more pag. 12. That all things necessary to be believed are done in order to acceptance with God are fully and perspicuously contained in Holy Scripture and therefore 't is unreasonable to exact further of our Brethren that which is confessed unnecessary and which neither our Saviour nor his Apostles imposed on their Disciples pag. 46. That necessary points pag. 20. may and will by all honest people be known and determin'd by the clear Testimony of Scripture by consent of Fathers by general Tradition As if all honest People could find out the consent of Fathers or be so familiarly acquainted with general Tradition and other points need not to be determined That all Confessions of particular Churches should be abolished pag. 53. and one publick Symbol agreed on which should be expressed only in the words of Scripture and want nothing which is necessary to Salvation to be known or done nor contain any thing which is not thus necessary to Salvation and in unnecessaries there should be a mutual bearing one with another That consent in Fundamentals ought to be carefully maintain'd but in other things neglected pag. 55. That there should be nothing in our Ecclesiastical Constitutions that may give any plausible pretence for Separation or Nonconformity pag. 21. Now these I confess are several of them very sine Aerial Speculations such as is no very difficult thing for Mercurial Wits to light on and 't is as easie for any Melancholy Contemplative Man to warm his Brains into a conceit of their Truth Worth and Excellency But loquere ut videam I would fain see the Man that either has prov'd them or can prove them to be Practicable Notions I mean such as may be prudently applyed to the constituting or continuing of Societies or to the maintaining of a publick consent or a common order and decorum among ' em It may be a great Truth that all things necessary to Salvation are plainly and clearly revealed in Scripture but that they are all so plain that all may soon agree in what is necessary or that all honest People may know and determin all such points or that only such should be agreed in and enjoyn'd I shall conclude to be very unpracticable Notions till this Gentleman or somebody for him can tell me First What Person or Persons have so much as pretended to give an exact List and Catalogue in particular of all those Fundamentals which in general we profess to Believe plainly contain'd in Scripture 2. Where that Society of Christians is to be met with which is govern'd only by union and consent in things absolutely necessary Or 3. where that Protestant Church is to be found where nothing of Ceremony is imposed either for Order Decency or Uniformity If no such instance can be produc'd 't is a pregnant evidence that such Theories and Principles are inflexible to the measure and ends of Government incompatible with the duty of Governours and with the necessities of the Persons and Societies that are to be govern'd and therefore they seem calculated only for the Meridian of Vtopia or Cracovia and may serve indifferently for all Latitudinarian Regions and Anarchical Routs You see Sir by this Packet how great a trouble your generosity in sending me The Protestant Reconciler has drawn upon you no less than that of reading several Sheets of Animadversions on the Preface but you may comfort your self with believing that your Trouble will end here as mine does For having not my own Books by me scarce any of them I mean that might be serviceable for such a purpose 't will be a vanity for me to attempt the Confutation of the Prefacer's Book especially since he has been pleas'd to interess Dr. Womock a much more considerable Person and still living I hope in the Contents of it insomuch that if he shall think fit to make any Reply to him his Book will I believe neither require nor deserve any other or better Confutation than will result from that Defence It was but the beginning of this Month that I receiv'd it from your kindness and having since spent all this pains about the Preface you cannot imagine I have so much as read the Book But however I have so far consider'd the Contents of its Chapters and glanced upon so many parts of the Book that I conjecture the main stress and turn of the Cause lies in the fourth Chapter which therefore whosoever solidly Answers will effectually baffle the design of this Writer and may let the rest of the Book take its course and permit the weak Brethren to make the best Advantage they can of it When you have perused these Papers I hope you will impartially communicate your sense of them to Your Cordial Friend and Humble Servant S. T. Febr. 28. 1682 3.
Impositions nor 2. are ever like to have who 3. are like to make a most mischievous use of it to the dishonour and prejudice of the Church and yet to pretend himself most unwilling to do the least dis-service to the Church is so palpably Protestatio contra factum that hardly any thing can be more so But why talks he only of doing dis-service to the Church as if that only were concern'd when the contents and design of his Book cast as great a slur upon and tend as much to the reproach and disparagement of the State as of the Church for he knows well enough that the Laws enjoyning Uniformity and imposing our Ceremonies are made by the King and that with the Consent not only of the Lords Spiritual but Temporal also and the Commons so that this Author in thus attempting to prove those Laws repugnant to the Law of God and inconsistent with so many of the grand momentous obligations of Christianity is so far from shewing himself unwilling to do dis-service to the Church that he has spent a great deal of time and pains and employed as one may guess the utmost of his Art and Industry to do as great a dis-service to that and the State both as for ought I know he could possibly do it with his Pen for what greater dis-service can there be done in that way to any Government than to Assert and Maintain a Position from which it follows by undeniable consequence That the Governours of this or that Nation have for multitudes of Years successively agreed in Enacting Laws contradictory to the Practice and Commands the Exhortations Arguings and Examples of both Christ and his Apostles For this is the immediate consequent of this Position and his manner of proving it That Superiours ought not to impose things Indifferent and Alterable without Sin as the Conditions of Church-Communion and Ministration Besides what greater Affront could be offer'd to the King himself then to publish such a Book at that very time when His Majesty gave such demonstration of his Resolutions to uphold and defend the Act for Uniformity and of his Zeal for the Church by requiring a strict and vigorous Execution of the Laws against Dissenters This man's undertaking therefore thus manag'd in contradiction to the Laws of the Land at a time when the King himself and inferiour Magistrates were more industriously zealous in executing those Laws than they have been for many years is in my Opinion such a daring and impudent pragmaticalness as ought to be encountered and chastised with a Punishment as notorious as the Crime Especially since as was before intimated I doubt not but this very Writer could have fill'd as many sheets as this Preface contains with Testimonies justifying the Constitutions of our Church and State in matters indifferent and I am confident had I had but my own Library about me three parts whereof are still at Oxford I could have done so my self But in some of the few Books I have here I meet with such passages as abundantly confirm me in that Confidence and withall make me very much suspect this Prefacer's sincerity and ingenuity in quoting For whereas he has in this Preface quoted Beza as an Enemy to all Symbolical Rites pag. 25 and affirming that they should be entirely excluded from the Christian Church and Zanchy as an Enemy to our Ceremonies and besides pretended pag. 35. That 't were endless to set down all that Bucer Calvin Chamier Daneus Farel Povanus Vrsin and Zipper with many others have said against the Vse and Imposition of them and pag. 36. that Cassander testifies without telling us where he so testifies that most have conceiv'd them fit to be condemned and abolished as foppish ludicrous ridiculous yea as noxious and pernicious Durell has given us such a different Account of things as is very opposite to this Prefacer's pretensions For in his forementioned Book Cap. 17. He Affirms that the Christian Church from the Apostles time to this day was never without nor in the judgment of the most Learned and Famous Protestants either can or ought to be without some significant Ceremonies pag. 182. to which purpose he quoted the sentiments of Luther Melancthon and Calvin pag. 186. and then said I could here produce very many more of the most Learned and Renowned Persons in the Reformed Churches of the same Opinion with Luther Melancthon and Calvin in this point Nor says he do I remember to have read any Reform'd Writer of any Note especially of those who were at the beginning of the Reformation whose Judgment and Authority is principally to be attended to in this dispute who Condemns significant Ceremonies meerly as such if so be no supernatural vertue be attributed to them for the producing Spiritual Effects nor Religion placed in them nor Merit or Justification expected from the use of them Out of which number he do's not except Beza himself but proceeds to Vindicate him as to that very Passage which this Prefacer has quoted out of his Epistle to Bishop Grindal as if it were for his turn and manifests that it ought not to be understood of such Symbolical Rites as are design'd to signifie only mens duty but such only as are meant to signifie and exhibit Spiritual Priviledges and the Divine Grace And in his Sixteenth Chapter he largely Answers that Epistle of Zanchy quoted at large by this Prefacer pag. 28. c. against imposing Linnen Garments and most of his Answers are taken out of Calvin Bucer P. Martyr and Zanchy himself And as to our Churches retaining the Use of the Cross in Baptism its Thirtieth Canon Acquaints us that That resolution and practice hath been allowed and approved by the Harmony of Confessions of later years Now this Assertion of the Composers of that Canon and those other of Durell as to the number of Persons approving the Imposition of Ceremonies makes me very much suspect this Author's ingenuity and honesty in quoting And I doubt he has contented himself with quoting many Testimonies besides those out of Gesselius pag 38. c. only by Retale and at second hand from others without examining the quotations himself and consulting the passages as they lye in the Original Authors which is an intolerable Neglect in any man that undertakes to Write and Publish a Discourse and Preface of this Nature and Consequence And one quotation which makes me suspect this is that Pag. 45. and 46. out of Baxter's Disput of Human Ceremonies Chap. 24. it should be 14. Sect. 3. R. 2. where he says 'T is shrewdly Argued by Mr. Baxter against our Ceremonies This seems to be coming after Christ to amend his Laws correct his Works and make better Laws and Ordinances for his Church than he himself hath done for if Christ would have such Rites imposed on the Churches he could better have done it himself than have left it to man for these Rites are equally necessary or unnecessary throughout all Ages and